WOULD A MAJORITY OF AMERICANS vote for sound money, if this were a clear-cut issue an election, and what does history suggest? Generally speaking, our country has been blest with a currency that commanded confidence and respect. For many years the dollar was freely convertible into gold coin. On a few occasions doubtful paper money was circulated; such as the currency issued by the Continental Congress, the wild-cat bank notes of the early 1800's; and the irredeemable greenbacks of the Civil War. Then the gold standard was challenged by freesilver proposals the 1870's and again 1896. Nearly all these problems were handled Congress, without being submitted to popular vote, and beginning with Alexander Hamilton and down to recent times, our most influential statesmen recognized the value to the nation of a respected currency and good credit standing. There was no popular vote on the silver issue the 1870's, when Senator Lucius Quintus Cincinnatus Lamar made his reputation for courage by voting his judgment against the expressed wish of the Mississippi legislature, which had sent him to the United States Senate. Nor were the voters consulted 1933 when gold was marked up price and withdrawn from circulation. In fact, the only national election which hard money was the major issue was 1896, when William Jennings Bryan wowed the Democrat convention with his peroration: shall press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns! You shall crucify mankind upon a cross of gold! The Republican platform that year said: We are unalterably opposed to every measure calculated to debase our currency or impair the credit of the country. It was very much the main issue of the campaign, discussed on every street corner; and the Republicans won by a good margin, aided by quite a few members of the opposite party, who proudly called themselves Gold Democrats. The Democrats had also been defeated 1868, when their platform advocated the retention of the greenbacks and payment of the public debt depreciated currency; but this was as much the major issue as 1896. As Bryan's day, there are some Democrats, like Senator Byrd, holding views considered old fashioned by many regarding the integrity of our currency; but it has been their party which most often has sought to win votes by favoring softer and cheaper money. The Republicans have been the defenders; but recent times the defense often has seemed half-hearted and timid. It would be difficult today to present a money question a form as simple as the issue of 1896. In those days many people were a bit skeptical of paper money of any kind. The phrase, not worth a Continental, was common use, and memories were fresh regarding wild-cat bank notes, worthless Confederate paper, and the depreciated and fluctuating Civil War greenbacks. Bond buyers looked to make sure they were getting the customary promise to pay in gold coin of the present standard of weight and fineness. World-wide, the highest respect was accorded the pound sterling, and the early 1900's there was no paper money common circulation England. Pocket money consisted of copper and silver coins and gold sovereigns. There were some Bank of England notes, but the smallest was a five-pound note, which had about the same buying power, and was as rarely seen, as a hundred dollar currency note around here today. Hard money meant gold. By the early 1930's, however, all the paper money use here had been for 50 years readily convertible into gold, and people had come to think of it as real money. When bank troubles started 1932, there was some hoarding of gold, but a great deal more hoarding of currency, although gold coin was still available.